Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(2): 296-306, 2018 http://www.hrpub.org DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2018.060212

Teacher Perspective on in

Sayim Aktay

Faculty of Education, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey

Copyright©2018 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

Abstract There has been a rapid increase both in the the Internet have continued to increase in number with the number of users and the number of websites providing data improvement of the Internet. Some 19.7 thousand domain since the invention of Internet; it has become the richest names existed on the Internet in 1995. As of October 2016, and most used source of information. However, several recent estimations by Netcraft have revealed that there are countries, including Turkey, resort to censorship owing to 1.82 billion registered domain names [42, 43]. The Internet the fact that anybody can publish on the Internet with also has an increasing number of user groups. Based on sometimes undesirable content. The main purpose of this data from Internetworldstats.com, in 1995 just 16 million study is to reveal how primary and secondary school people—or 0.4% of world’s population—had Internet teachers approach in Turkey. The study access. As of September 2017 that number has was conducted with a voluntary group of 2015 primary exponentially increased to 3.88 billion people—accounting (855) and secondary (1160) school teachers who had social for 51.7% of the world’s population [27, 28]. Examining media accounts in Turkey during the 2013 – 2014 Internet statistics, it can be observed that Internet use is on academic year in the spring semester. In the study, a survey the rise both in terms of numbers and active domain names. was used. The study reveals that 59.4% of teachers think Internet censorship has posed social problems in various that it is necessary to resort censor the Internet from countries due in part to there being such a large user of undesirable content like sexuality and gambling. On the numbers worldwide. Thus, several issues have arisen other hand, the vast majority of the teachers (86.6%) do not pertaining authorization and authority in terms of who approve the blocking of websites as they can be used as an controls the Internet and who decides which content is educational tool. Moreover, 60.5% believe that blocking of allowed [10]. When looking at how censorship is applied, certain Internet websites will not negatively affect one can observe the use of partial censorship such the education. blocking of content (i.e. a user’s feed) alongside the complete blocking of websites [58]. When Keywords Internet Censorship, Primary Education, looking at the world on whole, many countries such as Secondary Education [60, 6], [40, 39], [7], and Syria [13] apply Internet censorship. When examining reports produced by OpenNet Initiative, the number of countries that censor the Internet can be said to be over 80 [44]. Internet censorship is sometimes used by countries as a 1. Introduction means of preventing the general public from learning about their leaders’ errors [1]. In addition, while the censorship 1.1. The Internet and Internet Censorship may sometimes be perceived in terms of suppressing ideas of certain individuals, groups and government officers The Internet, which was created in 1969 by the United imposing the phenomena considered to be true and lawful States Ministry of Defense with the intent of developing a by the state may also be thought of as a necessity in order to system able to operate even in case of emergencies like protect children and moral values and improve society [1, nuclear strikes, has turned into a vast information network 25]. As an example, in some U.S. states content filtering interconnecting countries and computers that enterprises exists on public computers used in Internet cafes, schools, and individuals use for data exchange [24]. The Internet and libraries [61]. In the context of Internet censorship, has been improved and renewed in terms of both methods such as Boarder Gateway Protocol tampering, infrastructure and features over the years, and has become DNS tampering, and Packet filtering can be used to restrict more accessible to an ever increasing number of people certain content [18, 36]. The use of various censorship thanks to increasing bandwidth and reduced price [56]. methods can be seen today in countries such as Pakistan, The websites broadcasting and providing information on China, Quatar and the [38, 45]. In Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(2): 296-306, 2018 297

addition to state institutions, certain companies also censor restricted by any governmental body. In one study put their Internet. In one Italian study done involving 3G and together involving a total of 7,357 people from Hong 4G networks, a range of censorship of between 32.5% and Kong, , Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, 99.5% was found [4]. Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, it’s Today, when certain states and institutions apply believed that some 78% of users wanted freedom of Internet censorship, people either change how they act expression, and approximately 90% of users felt that online or they try one of any number of ways to bypass the freedom of expression is a basic human right. However, censorship. In one study done, it was observed that people over two out of every three users expressed that Internet who were confronted with censored Internet content were censorship, too, is necessary. A large proportion of users either able to shift towards an alternative source, search for were furthermore of the opinion that censorship needs to other related content or, upon giving up, shift to doing be applied in situations such as pornography, gambling, another activity else entirely [31]. In study done involving and violation of rights [55]. 51 Pakistani university students, the students were observed using VPS, web proxy, , and various other 1.3. The Internet from the Perspective of Education means to bypass the censorship [2]. In yet another study done involving 770 individuals in Pakistan, some 57% of The Internet is a substantial information-sharing tool people were observed using VPN programs to get around that enables people to communicate with each other via the censorship [31]. It’s been demonstrated that those who such means as e-mail and . Add to that, manage to bypass the censorship first express the most all types of transactions from banking to shopping can be interest in blocked social media content [29]. However, done via it [26]. Today, the Internet also provides according to a study done by Callanan & Jerman-Blazic educational benefits like access to educational information, [12] involving 664 participants from 10 Asian and African online expertise, lesson plans, and teacher forums [8]. The countries, 34% of users confronting blocked content Internet’s becoming one of today’s most important experienced security problems. educational tools means that integrating it into teaching has also reached become of importance. Libraries, 1.2. Internet Censorship Studies educators, and institutions thus are trying hooking schools up to the Internet, whereby school programs and In some countries, people’s reaction towards Internet textbooks too are even becoming digitized [52]. censorship in terms of opinion differs towards the country The Internet today has become a key well of [19]. For example, upon asking Americans’ opinions on information for especially families, students, and teachers Internet censorship, some have stated that online content [51]. It also has plays a positive role in students’, teachers’ must be censored in order to achieve children safety, a administrators’, and families’ lives [5]; thus entailing that civilized society, national security, and creativity. On the a great amount of money is being invested worldwide by other hand, others have suggested that people must be able families and schools into Internet-based technology such to share their ideas in order to express themselves online as computers [57]. It appears that the Internet. It appears even if their ideas are controversial [62]. Similarly, in a that for students, the Internet is believed to play an 2005 study put forth by Hostway involving 2500 people, integral role as part of a modern education [50]. it was determined that bloggers need to be prohibited from When it comes to researching information, the Internet sharing people’s addresses and personal information has changed how young students gain access to online [32]. information by means of offering a number of advantages. In a 1994 – 1996 study of more than 15,000 participants One study done involving young pupils had revealed [11], 36% of those participants stated that Internet some 97% of students had obtained information via the censorship is the most prominent issue concerning the Internet rather than using the library [41]. Children today Internet. In a 1998 American study of 4247 people [17], are able to use the internet in order to browse the web, do 47% of participants indicated that certain types of homework, play games, follow social media, blog, listen information must not be allowed on the Internet, while 44% to music, interact via webcam, and venture through objected to Internet censorship. In a 2007 Australian study cyberspace [54]. of 17.881 people [59], 74% of the participants objected to Moreover, of what is censored automatically, an even government-imposed content filtering systems. In a greater proportion of content wanting to be censored but 2001-person Chinese study [34], more than 80% of the that can be incorrectly censored is educational content. In participants claimed that certain content like pornography a study that was done aimed at seeking out programs that and violence must be censored. In a 2010 BBC study of either properly or wrong sifted internet content, it was 26 countries of 27,973 people, [9], 53% of overall discovered that close to 24% of educational content was participants, 83% of South Korean participants, 77% of able to be blocked [53]. Today there are various different Nigerian participants, and 72% of Mexican participants techniques and programs used to censor the Internet, all of demanded that purported that the Internet must not which are ever continuously being improved upon and,

298 Teacher Perspective on Internet

when taken into consideration, are understood to  What are primary and secondary school teachers’ accurately and reliably work 100% of the time [3, 21]. opinions on the blocking websites that are able to This in turn is why problems can arise when educational be used for educational purposes? content confronts the applied censorship.  Does Internet censorship affect education quality? A sharp increase in children accessing the World Wide  What are justifications behind primary and Web is being seen hand in hand as Internet-based secondary school teachers’ opinions within the technology ever rapidly advances [20]. However, with this context of Internet censorship? comes a number of dangers as well [20]. One study had The teachers’ opinions on Internet censorship are showed that children who were 8 and under were, to a analyzed within the context of factors such as whether or limited degree, aware of the Internet [14]. Another study not they follow Internet-related developments, whether or had found that 38% of youth between the ages of 9 – 19 not they have previously experienced website censorship, had trusted the vast majority of internet content, whilst 49% and other factors such as gender, either being a primary or had trusted only a portion of what was on the web [36]. a secondary school teacher, experience, computer skill, Should e-safety training be provided in schools, it still and frequency of Internet use. would not be sufficient enough in awakening students to the Internet’s many risks [15]. Most families it seems are unaware of the tools that 2. Materials and Methods exist that can monitor their children’s internet activity. This in essence means that students’ internet usage is thus This study is quantitative in nature and aims to gather unmonitored as well, and the chance that children are the opinions of primary and secondary school teachers using the web in a safe manner is slim [47]. alike on the topic of internet censorship. A qualitative Within the context of internet-based education, just as research method was preferred in order to reach a broad there are many benefits, there too are posed mass of people as well as examine educators’ opinions in dangers—especially for young individuals. In a British deep detail. study involving 783 teenaged youth, it was shown that when children were scanning the internet for information, 2.1. Participants they encountered the risks of accidently stumbling upon violent and pornographic content upon entering the The study was performed during the spring term of the resources that came up in their searches [35]. Similarly, in 2014 – 2015 academic year with a voluntary group of another study done involving 25,142 children between the 2015 primary and secondary school teachers who were ages of 9 - 16 and from 25 counties, it registered with a social networking website providing was determined that children were at clear risk of coming Turkish-based services. Within this context, primary and across Internet pornography, cyberbullying, sex chat secondary school teachers were contacted via the social rooms, establishing relationships with strangers, and other networking site, where they in turn filled out the survey harmful web content [36]. voluntarily—thus reaching randomly selected teachers in Upon analysis, although the Internet has many a benefit, every region of Turkey. The survey was made available to there also are important risks for students, particularly only the teachers with social networking accounts. Each young students. However, it can be seen that the teacher was only able to fill out one survey. application of censorship is potentially subjective, and that Of the teachers who participated, 29% were female and it can in turn useful content. In turn, there is a great 71.1% were male. Of those, 42.4 % taught in primary need to examine the subject of Internet censorship, school, and 57.6% taught in secondary school. In terms of particularly within the context of education. The main teaching experience, 34.5% of teachers had 1-10 years, 37% purpose of this study is to reveal how the censoring of had 11-20 years, and 28.5% had 21+ years of experience. websites in Turkey is perceived by teachers. Primary and Furthermore, 2.5% of teachers possessed limited computer secondary school teachers are involved in the education of skills, 59.5% had a medium or functional level of skill, young individuals, seemingly more so than and 38% were advanced users. In terms of internet use, post-secondary instructors. They can address Internet 31.7% of teachers used the internet 7 or less hours per censorship by considering factors such as student week, 23% used it between 8-14 hours per week, and 45.1% characteristics. used it 15 or more hours per week. 86.7% of teachers follow Internet-based media. Finally, 71% of teachers 1.4. Research Questions have previously encountered blocked content at least once. The following questions are answered in line with the Teachers who participated in the study appear mostly to main purpose of the study: be male and to be secondary school teachers; however, an  What are primary and secondary school teachers’ equilibrium distribution exists in terms of teaching opinions on Internet censorship? experience. Moreover, it can be observed that teachers

Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(2): 296-306, 2018 299

have medium-level computer skills and use the Internet 15 prevention within the context of education”, and whether hours or more in a week. The majority follows Internet “the blocking of certain websites did nor didn’t have a news and media and has encountered blocked websites at negative impact”. Open-ended questions sought detailed least once. reasons behind teachers’ opinions. In this study, close and open ended questions together 2.2. Instrument were used as coupling the two yields the best result [49], particularly when all of the answers from the participants The survey method was chosen for this study as surveys cannot be foreseen. enable researchers to define a past or present situation within distinctive conditions without either influencing or 2.3. Data Analysis altering that given situation in any way whatsoever. Another reason for using the survey method was to enable SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) researchers the ability to obtain detailed data from a large packaged software was used in analyze the data of this number of people. Furthermore, internet survey method study. Frequency, percentage, and arithmetic means as was chosen for this study for a range of reasons [16] well as the “Chi Square Test” for intergroup comparison including being recognized to be a fast means of collecting were utilized. In addition, open-ended questions obtained data, being low in cost, being able to reach a wider through the survey were included in the analysis by being geography and more diverse array of people, being categorized and entered in SPSS environment [49]. programmable online, and detailed answers being able to Similar or identical categories obtained through be collected from open-ended questions. open-ended questions were combined and grouped under In this study, which aims to determine primary and a main category. Frequency and percentage data were secondary school teachers’ opinions on Turkish Internet provided in order to interpret the opinions belonging to censorship, “The Survey on Teachers’ Opinions Related to the aforesaid main category. Blocking of the Websites” has been used. In developing the survey, first a draft survey was created by making a literature review. Great care was given to ensuring that 3. Findings survey questions highlighted the questions under analysis. Questions were kept from being vague and confusing, In this part, the findings pertaining to revealing how using emotional language, and having multiple meanings website censorship in Turkey is perceived according to and interpretations. The draft was presented to experts, and teachers’ viewpoints and have been considered based on then revised in line with their suggestions and corrections. the order set in the purposes section in order to enhance In the second stage, in order to find out whether survey intelligibility. Opinions been examined in terms of questions were comprehensible or not, a pilot study was personal qualities such as gender and professional branch. performed on 106 primary and secondary school teachers. Furthermore, more profound findings have been obtained The pilot survey was then rearranged and ultimately by more deeply analyzing these qualities upon being finalized based on teacher feedback. compared with other qualities. The survey has two parts. In the first part are the questions addressing the personal qualities of the teachers. 3.1. Teachers’ Opinions on Internet Censorship The first section was comprised of seven questions. Each of the qualities in this section was obtained with close-ended Table 1. Teachers’ opinions on Internet censorship questions while the questions pertaining to Internet use Group Number Percentage frequency and experience were attained with open-ended Approve 584 59.4 questions. In the second part, close and open-ended All teachers questions aiming to obtain information from the teachers Disapprove 1431 40.6 about Internet censorship exist. The second section In analyzing the opinions on Internet censorship, what’s consisted of six questions, three of which were observed is that 59.4% of the teachers support Internet closed-ended, and three of which were open-ended. In the censorship, while 40% do not approve of it. Within this close ended opinion-oriented questions, positive and context, it can be suggested that the majority teachers negative choices were given in order to determine precisely support Internet censorship; however there isn’t a wide what direction the participants decided, thus intending to gap between those who approve versus disapprove. The prevent indecision. Closed-ended questions asked whether data from the analysis of teacher opinion regarding they (teacher) “supported or didn’t support the prevention Internet censorship as based on different qualities are of accessing certain websites on the Internet”, whether they presented Table 2. “supported or didn’t support the potential use of access

300 Teacher Perspective on Internet Censorship in Turkey

Table 2. Teachers’ Opinions on Internet Censorship Based on Personal Qualities

Approve Disapprove Group X2 SD N % N % Female 361 61.8 223 38.2 Gender .175 1 Male 836 58.4 595 41.6 Primary 500 58.5 355 41.5 Branch .497 1 Secondary 697 60.1 463 39.9 1-10 Years 433 62.3 262 37.7 Experience 11-20 Years 478 64.2 267 35.8 .000 2 21+ Years 286 49.7 289 50.3 Medium 747 62.4 451 37.6 Computer Skills .003 1 High 424 55.4 341 44.6 7 hours or less/week 416 65.2 222 34.8 Frequency of Internet Use 8-14 hours/ week 306 65.4 162 34.6 .000 2 15+ hours / week 475 52.3 434 42.7 Yes 1009 57.7 739 42.3 Following Internet-based media .000 1 No 188 70.4 79 29.6 Yes 760 53.1 670 46.9 Encountered blocked websites .000 1 No 437 74.7 148 25.3

once support Internet censorship, compared with 74% of In analyzing the opinions according to gender, 61% of those who have not encountered any website blocking (χ2 female and 58% of male teachers supported Internet (1, n: 2015) =79.088, p<.05). censorship. These percentages are very close; a difference Not only have opinions on Internet censorship been of opinion between male and female teachers does not determined, but the reasons behind those opinions have appear to exist (χ2 (1, n: 2015) =1.843, p>.05). Likewise, too been studied. Teachers’ justifications in support of 58% of primary and 60% of secondary school teachers Internet censorship as well as the number of the teachers support Internet censorship. Respectively, their opinions expressing that support are presented in Table 3. are very similar. A meaningful difference between 2 teachers’ opinions (χ (1, n: 2015) =.462, p>.05) does not Table 3. Teachers’ Justifications for Supporting the Internet Censorship appear to exist. On the other hand, teachers’ opinions statistically differ Moral Dimension (218) Unethical content (83), inappropriate content (69), sexually-explicit in terms of experience, computer skills, Internet-use websites (60), the automatic-opening of inappropriate websites (6) frequency, following Internet media, and the encountering Appropriateness for Children (181) of blocked website. In analyzing teacher opinion Inappropriate content for children (121), encourage immoral behaviors according experience, 62% of teachers with 1 – 10 years in children (30), websites which evoke psychological problems in of experience, as well as 64% with 11 – 20 years of children (24), content which negatively affects children’s mental support Internet censorship. This is in contrast to 49% of development (6) 2 Negative content (44) teachers with 21 plus years’ experience (χ (1, n: 2015) Violence (17), gambling (7), propaganda(6), websites causing =4.500, p<.05). psychological problems in individuals (6), content that harms religious Upon analysis of the correlation between opinion and values (3), websites harmful to social values (3), fright-provoking computer skill, only those with a medium to high level of websites (2) computer skill were considered due to the comparatively Unawareness (35) tiny number of teachers with limited computer skill. It Unawareness of individuals (28), unawareness of children (5), lack of parental control (2) appears that 62% of teachers with a medium skill level Information pollution (30) support Internet censorship more so than the 55% of Websites containing information pollution (21), harmful hidden 2 teachers with a high skill level (χ (1, n: 2015) =9.028, content(9) p<.05). Likewise, that 55% group supports Internet Other justifications (67) censorship, compared to just 65% of medium-use and 65% Harmful content to national values (35), computer-endangering of low-usage users (χ2 (1, n: 2015) =35.104, p<.05). Of software (9), negative influence on self-improvement (6), content impairing social order (5), waste of time (4), illegal content (4), teachers who follow Internet-related media, 57% support ill-intentioned users (1), the existence of websites administrated by Internet censorship—this, compared with 70% of ill-intentioned individuals (1), governments need to protect their non-followers (χ2 (2, n: 2015) =14.942, p<.05). 53% of citizens from the dangers of the cyber world (1), freedom must be kept teachers who have encountered website blocking at least restricted (1)

Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(2): 296-306, 2018 301

Moral justification and inappropriate content for 3.2. Teachers’ Opinion on the Blocking of Educational children are the most frequent reasons behind why Websites teachers support Internet censorship. Negative content Table 5. Teachers’ Opinions on the Blocking of Websites Used as including violence, gambling, and propaganda websites Educational Tools are also among the mentioned reasoning. Teachers’ opinions as to why they do not support Internet censorship Group Number Percentage Approve 270 13,4 are presented in Table 4: All teachers Disapprove 1745 86,6 Table 4. Justifications for Why Teachers don’t Support Internet Censorship In analyzing the opinions on the blocking of educational websites, 13.4% of teachers approve, where as Freedoms (349) 86.6% do not approve. Within this context, it can be Freedom must not be restricted (208), people can control themselves suggested that teachers overall do not approve of the (68), prohibitions attract people (30), families can set up filters for their blocking of sites used for educational purposes. Data children (24), personal rights must be respected (10), the decision to analysis of teachers’ opinions on this matter as broken block websites is made those who are in power (5), it is not a down by personal quality is given in Table 6. democratic practice (2), it is an outdated practice (2) As seen in Table 6 below, teachers appear to overall Access to Information (75) disapprove of censorship. Simultaneously, gender, The blocking the websites containing useful content (34), access to experience, computer skills, being either a secondary or information must not be restrained (27), there are ways to access primary school teacher, and personally encountering blocked content (14) website blocking do not constitute any statistical It is observed that restriction of freedom and access to difference. On the other hand, teachers who use the information are among the most frequently cited reasons Internet less frequently appear to support blocking more 2 as to why teachers object Internet censorship. so than frequent Internet users (χ (2, n: 2015) =9.737, p<.05).

Table 6. Teachers’ Opinions on Blocking the Websites Used as Educational Tools, by Personal Quality

Approve Disapprove X2 SD Group N % N %

Female 71 12.2 513 87.8 Gender .330 1 Male 199 13.9 1232 86.1

Primary 101 11.8 754 88.2 Branch .084 1 Secondary 169 14.6 991 85.4

1-10 years 108 15.5 587 84.5

Experience 11-20 years 88 11.8 657 88.2 .105 2

21+ years 74 12.9 501 87.1

Medium 145 12.1 1053 87.9 Computer Skills .072 1 High 115 15.0 650 85.0

7 hours or less a week 107 16.8 531 83.2

Frequency of Internet use 8-14 hours a week 60 12.8 408 87.2 .008 2

15+ hours a week 103 11.3 806 88.7

Yes 233 13.3 1515 86.7 Following Internet-based media .889 1 No 37 13.9 230 86.1

Experiencing website blocking Yes 178 12.4 1252 87.6 .059 1

302 Teacher Perspective on Internet Censorship in Turkey

In terms of those who support website blocking, teachers’ reasoning and the number of teachers expressing those reasons are given in Table 7:

Table 7. Justifications of the Teachers in Support of Website Blocking

All Reasons (9) The possibility of both unfavorable as well as useful website content (3), for protecting students’ moral values (2), children cannot be made aware of dangerous content (2), blocked websites are already of no value (2), Educational websites may have links to unfavorable websites (1), designers of the websites are unknown (1) Although teachers’ justifications include both content-related and moral dimensions, the number of teachers expressing these reasons is relatively low. In terms of objection, teachers’ reasoning and the number of teachers expressing such reasons are given in Table 8:

Table 8. Justifications of the Teachers against Website Blocking

Restriction on knowledge (331) Restriction on knowledge (131), educational content must be accessed (88), impeding access to knowledge (62), the Internet is useful (22), it contributes to education (22), it negatively affects education (4), the quantity of blocked sites limit children’s ability to research (2) Access opportunity (67) Freedom must not be restricted (56), websites are blocked without sufficient examination (7), only unfavorable websites must be blocked (4) Other reasons (9) Technology in education must be utilized (4), websites are sometimes shut down for political reasons (3), it must be left to children to know right from wrong (2) Teachers against website blocking appear to mainly be against the restriction of knowledge and access to that knowledge.

Table 9. Teachers’ Opinions Website Censorship and the Negative Impact on Education

Group Number Percentage Yes 796 39,5 All teachers No 1219 60,5 Upon looking at Table 10, 39.5% of teachers think website censorship does impact education. However, 60.5% do not website censorship negatively impacts education. It can be suggested that majority of the teachers think that the blocking of certain websites does negatively impact education. Further analysis of the presented statistics as broken down by various qualities, is presented in Table 10:

Table 10. Teachers’ Opinions Website Blocking and the Negative Impact on Education, by Personal Quality

Yes No Group X2 SD N % N % Female 227 38.9 357 61.1 Gender .748 1 Male 569 39.8 862 60.2 Primary School 348 40.7 507 59.3 Branch .369 1 Secondary School 448 38.6 712 61.4 1-10 years 267 38.4 428 61.6 Experience 11-20 years 260 34.9 485 65.1 .000 2 21+ years 269 46.8 306 53.2 Medium 478 39.9 720 60.1 Computer skills .799 1 High 300 39.2 465 60.8 7 hours or less a week 242 37.9 396 62.1 Internet use frequency 8-14 hours a week 158 33.8 310 66.2 .001 2 15+ hours a week 396 43.6 513 56.4 Yes 707 40.4 1041 59.6 Following Internet-based media .032 1 No 89 33.3 178 66.7 Yes 629 44.0 801 56.0 Experience with website blocking .000 1 No 167 28.5 418 71.5

Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(2): 296-306, 2018 303

According to Table 10, it appears that the most teachers censorship [34], 74% of Australians [59], 83% of South feel that there isn’t a negative impact on education. Koreans, 77% of Nigerians, and 72% of Mexicans [9] Gender, computer skill, and being either a primary or were against internet censorship. However, in another secondary school teacher do not appear to make any study done involving participants from Hong Kong, India, difference. On the other hand, teachers with 21+ years of Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, experience tend to think that it does (χ2 (2, n: 2015) Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, over two out =19.700, p<.05). Likewise, the group with frequent of every three people were in support of Internet Internet use strongly feels that will be negatively impacted censorship, keeping in mind that that approximately 90% (χ2 (2, n: 2015) =13.391, p<.05). The teachers who follow felt the internet to be a basic human [55]. Thus, it too is Internet media (χ2 (2, n: 2015) =4.903, p<.05) and who worth noting Turkey’s relatively high statistic, with 56.4% have experienced website blocking at least once (χ2 (2, n: of teachers being in favor of internet censorship. In a 2010 2015) =40.765, p<.05) also think that it does affect Greek study involving 55 people with advanced education education negatively, this more so than those who do not [32], 47% of participants stated that the Internet must be follow Internet media, respectively. Justifications for the censored completely, while 31% stated it should be teachers’ opinions based on the above are given in censored under certain conditions. Furthermore, the Table11: percentage of teachers who believe in the necessity of Internet censorship is much higher than that of a study Table 11. Justifications for the teachers’ opinions conducted by [48] involving 138 university students. In All reasons (7) yet another study done by [46] involving 299 university People always find a way to access blocked content (4), Prohibitions students, it was found that 28% of students supported arouse interest (3) Internet censorship. This finding may imply that primary With regards to the negative impact on education, few and secondary school teachers in Turkey believe in people expressed their opinion. Justifications thus are Internet control more so than university students do. It is given in Table 12: thought that this stems from the difference in the students’ age group and context of education. Table 12. Justifications for Opinions on Website Blocking and Negative When little or no statistical relationship in terms of Education Impact opinion, gender, and area exists, it is believed that more Websites that aren’t currently blocked are sufficient (94) experienced teachers who have a high level of computer Websites that aren’t currently blocked are sufficient (30), the websites skill, who frequently use the Internet, who follow which are blocked are of no value (30), blocking negative contents does Internet-based media, who have experienced internet not negatively affect education (18), the blocking of negative websites censorship first hand see less of a need for internet accelerates access to correct information (8), individuals can access unobjectionable information (5), it isn’t/will not become a problem if the censorship when compared with their counterparts. It can correct Internet sources are chosen (3) be noted that teachers with more professional experience Other reasons (43) as well as those who spent a great deal of time on the Different information sources can be used (38), age restriction is Internet, were more familiar with it, and used it frequently beneficial (5) were most against Internet censorship. Comparatively, the relatively similar results of Shen & Tsui’s [55] study It can be observed that teachers by and large argue that revealed that the need not to restrict freedom was the the blocking of certain websites doesn’t and won’t single most important behind teachers being against the negatively affect education, due to the fact that blocked employment of Internet censorship and, on the subject websites are (seen as being) of little value. They think that confronting harmful content, they felt that individuals can unfavorable websites have already been blocked, thus control themselves, that people are drawn to what’s positively affects education. In analyzing the justifications, forbidden, that people’s personal rights must be respected, unblocked websites appear to be sufficient. and that families can use internet filters if felt to be necessary. Sexually explicit content, inappropriate content for children, and unfavorable content like gambling and 4. Discussion violence are the most prominently cited reasons in which In concluding the study, it was found that 59.4% of the why teachers think positively about the Internet teachers believe that Internet censorship must be applied. censorship. Studies produced both by Livingstone & Of that, no statistical difference was found between Harper [35] as well as Livingstone, Haddon, Gorzing & primary school teachers (58.5%) and middle school Olafsson [36] justify teachers due to the fact that teachers (60.1%). Our findings correlate with the findings teenagers are likely to wrongly encounter negative content of an American study in which 47% of the participants such as violence and pornography, as well as that children claimed that only certain of information should appear on are not able to control themselves and that content which the Internet [17]. In terms of those who support internet both pollutes knowledge and poses a threat to a country’s censorship worldwide, in one Chinese study done, while national values exists. These findings are parallel to the 80% of participants expressed being in support of internet findings of a 2007 Chinese study [34] in which more than

304 Teacher Perspective on Internet Censorship in Turkey

80% of participants stated that pornographic and violent The George Washington University, Institute for content must be censored. Similarly, a study [55] revealed International Economic Policy, Washington. that over two out of every three users expressed that [2] Aceto, G., Botta, A., Pescapé, A., Awan, M.F., Ahmad, T. & Internet censorship is necessary. On the other hand, Qaisar, S.B. (2016). Analyzing internet censorship in teachers objecting to Internet censorship cited restriction Pakistan. In IEEE 2nd International Forum on Research and on both freedom as well as Internet access as reasons. Technologies for Society and Industry Leveraging a Better This is parallel with the 26-country BBC study [9] in Tomorrow (IEEE RTSI), Bologna, Italy, September 2016. which 79% of participants regarded the Internet as being a [3] Aceto, G., Montieri, A. & Pescape, A. (2016). Internet fundamental right. : A first look at 3G/4G networks. In The majority of both primary school teachers (88.2%) Cryptology and Network Security 15th International and secondary school teachers (85.4%) do not approve the Conference, CANS Milan, Italy, November 14–16, 2016 (pp. 737-742). blocking of education-intentioned websites. On the other hand, teachers who use the Internet less frequently support [4] Aceto, G., & Pescape, A. (2015). Internet censorship the Internet censorship more so than those whose detection: A survey. Computer Networks, 83, 381-421. frequency of usage is either medium or high. Teachers [5] Aktay, S. (2008). The Effect of the Internet on the Quality of object to the blocking of websites used as educational Education. The International Journal of Learning, 15(4), tools on the grounds that censorship limits information 81-88. and restricts the opportunity to access information that can be used for the purposes of education. The finding of a [6] Anderson, D. (2012). behind the of China. ACM Queue 10(11), 1-10. study done by Richardson, Resnick, Hansen, Derry & Rideout [53] revealed that the fact that censorship can [7] Aryan, S., Aryan, H. & Halderman, J. A. (2013). Internet potentially block educational content supports its negative : A first look. USENIX Workshop on Free impact within the context of education. The number one and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI), aug 2013. reason teachers support placing restrictions accessing of websites that can be used within education is that harmful [8] Barrron, A. E. & Ivers, K. S. (1998). The internet and content exists on the Internet. Harmful Internet content instruction: Activities and ideas. Colorado: Libraries thus feeds into concerns by educators [36]. Unlimited, Inc. 59.3% of primary and 61.4% of secondary school [9] BBC World Service (2010). Four in five regard Internet teachers believe that the blocking of certain websites will access as a fundamental right: Global poll. Retrieved from affect education negatively. However, teachers with http://www.globescan.com/newsarchives/bbc2010_internet/ extensive professional experience of 21 years or more, [10] Bidgoli, H. (2004). The internet encyclopedia. New Jersey: coupled with high Internet use frequency appear to believe John Wiley & Sons. that Internet censorship will affect education even more negatively. Likewise, those who follow the Internet media [11] Boyle, A. (1996). Censorship ranks as top internet issue. and have experienced website blocking also believe that Retrieved from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/press/msnbc/46 education will be more negatively impacted. One 431.html important finding thus that experienced teachers as well as teachers who more frequently use and are more familiar [12] Callanan, C. & Jerman-Blazic, B. (2016). User awareness with the Internet is of the opinion that censorship impacts and tolerance of privacy abuse on mobile Internet: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 109– education negatively. According to some educators, 128. reasons such as the Internet being able to be used as a fountain of knowledge and that currently unblocked [13] Chaabane, A., Chen, T., Cunche, M., Cristofaro, E. D., websites are sufficiently beneficial, in turn avoiding the Friedman, A. & Kaafar, M. A. (2014). Censorship in the wild: Analyzing internet filtering in Syria. In Internet negative impact that restricting websites can have. On the Measurement Conference 2014 (pp. 285-298). other hand, some teachers feel that there is a negative impact on students in that restrictions arouse interest. [14] Chaudron, C. (2015). Young children (0-8) and digital Research conducted by Hobbs and Roberts [28] shows technology: A qualitative exploratory study across seven this to be true, showing that encountered blocked content countries. Luxembourg: European Union: Joint Research Centre. heightens the interest in both it and in finding a way to access it. [15] Cranmer, S., Selwyn, N., & Potter, J. (2009). Exploring primary pupils’ experiences and understandings of ‘e-safety’. Education and Information Technologies, 14(2), 127–142. [16] Czaja, R. & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures. London: Sage Publications, Inc. REFERENCES [17] Depken, C. A. (2006). Who supports internet censorship? [1] Aaronson, S. A. (2016). At the Intersection of Cross-Border First Monday, 11 (9). Retrieved from Information Flows and : TPP as a Case Study. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1390/1

Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(2): 296-306, 2018 305

308 seven chinese cities. Retrieved from http://research.policyarchive.org/16013.pdf [18] Dixon, L., Ristenpart, T. & Shrimpton, T. (2016). Network traffic obfuscation and automated internet censorship. arXiv [35] Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2009). Balancing preprint arXiv:1605.04044. opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & [19] Du, Y. R. (2016). Same events, different stories internet Society, 11(8), 1-25. censorship in the Arab spring seen from China. & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1-19. [36] Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A. & Olafsson, K. (2010). Risks and safety on the internet. LSE, London: EU [20] Edwards, S., Nolan, A., Henderson, M., Mantilla, A., Kids Online. Plowman, L., & Skouteris, H. (2016). Young children's everyday concepts of the internet: A platform for cyber‐ [37] Lu, T., Zhao, J., Zhao, L., Li, Y. & Han, W. (2016). An safety education in the early years. British Journal of analysis of internet censorship circumvention techniques. Educational Technology. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12529 International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 10(5), 63-72. [21] Elahi, T., Swanson, C. M., & Goldberg, I. (2015). Slipping past the cordon: A systematization of internet censorship [38] Magsi, A. H., Shaikh, A. W., Kehar, A., Talpur, M. S. H. & resistance. Centre for Applied Cryptographic Research Depar, M. H. (2016). Measuring the efficiency of web (CACR), University of Waterloo, Tech. Rep, 10. . Asian Journal of Engineering, Sciences & Technology (Special issue), 62-64. [22] Engelliweb.com (2016). Erisime engellenen siteler [The websites which were blocked]. Retrieved from [39] Nabi, Z. (2013). The anatomy of web censorship in Pakistan. http://engelliweb.com/istatistikler/ USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet. [23] Epstein, Z. (2014). The most important thing you’ll see today: Internet censorship world map. Retrieved from [40] Nabi, Z. (2014). Censorship is futile. First Monday 19(11). http://bgr.com/2014/02/20/internet-censorship-world-map/ [41] Nawaz, S., Ali, R., Batool, S. & Alaudeen, Z. (2015). Use of [24] Gupta, V. (2003). Internet and web design. New Delhi: Internet among Youth and its Effect on Library Attendance. Dreamtech Press. Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries (PJIM&L), 16 (2015), 29-37. [25] Hamade, S. N. (2008). Internet filtering and censorship. In Fifth International Conference on Information Technology: [42] Netcraft (2017a). September 2017 web server survey. New Generations, Las Vegas, Nevada April 7-9. Retrieved from https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/09/11/september-2 [26] Hamilton, J. (2005). Internet. United States: Abdo 017-web-server-survey.html Publishing Company. [43] Netcraft (2017b). October 2017 web server survey. [27] Internetworldstats.com (2017a). Internet growth statistics. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/10/26/october-201 http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm 7-web-server-survey-13.html [28] Internetworldstats.com (2017b). World Internet Users and [44] OpenNet Initiative (2016). Research. Retrieved from 2017 Population Stats. Retrieved from https://opennet.net/research http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm [45] Oliver, F., Darer, A. & Wright, J. (2016). Poisoning the well: [29] Hobbs, W. & Roberts, M. E. (2016). How sudden censorship Exploring the great firewall's poisoned dns responses. In can increase access toinformation. Retrieved from WPES '16 Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Workshop on http://www.margaretroberts.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/0 Privacy in the Electronic Society 2016 (pp. 95-98). 8/selfiecensorship.pdf [46] Ozcinar, H. & Tanyeri, T. (2016). The relationship between [30] Karasar, N. (2003). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi [Scientific undergraduates’ view on internet censorship, and their Research Method]. : Nobel Publishing. media literacy level. Usak Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 165-188. [31] Khattak, S., Javed, M., Khayam, S. A., Uzmi, S. A. & Paxson, V. (2014). A look at the consequences of internet [47] Ozgur, H. (2016). The relationship between Internet censorship through an isp lens. In IMC '14 Proceedings of parenting styles and Internet usage of children and the 2014 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference, adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 411-424. 2014 (pp. 271-284). [48] Ozkan, H. & Arikan, A. (2009). Internet censorship in [32] Koumartzis, N. (2010). Greek internet regulation survey. Turkey: University students' opinions. World Journal on Retrieved from Educational Technology, 46-56. http://webobserver.net/2010/11/07/greek-internet-regulatio [49] Pallant, J. (2003). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham: n-survey-2010/ Open University Press. [33] LeMay, R. (2005). Blog censorship gains support. Retrieved [50] Pandey, A. (2016). Attitude towards Importance of Internet from in Modern Education. Global Journal for Research Analysis, https://www.cnet.com/news/blog-censorship-gains-support/ 5(1), 251-252. [34] Liang, G. (2007). Surveying internet usage and its impact in [51] Pfoeffer, P. (2002). Web usability and children: current

306 Teacher Perspective on Internet Censorship in Turkey

research and implications for information professionals. [57] U.S. Department of Education. 2013. Digest of Education Orana, 38(2), 11-13. Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014-015). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. [52] Reese, J. (1999). Internet Books for Educators, Parents, and Department of Education. Washington, DC. Students. Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. [58] Varol, O. (2016). Spatiotemporal analysis of censored [53] Richardson, C. R., Resnick, P. J., Hansen, D. L., Derry, H. A. content on Twitter. In WebSci '16 Proceedings of the 8th & Rideout, V.J. (2002). Does Pornography-Blocking ACM Conference on Web Science 2016 (pp. 372-373). Software Block Access to Health Information on the [59] Whirlpool.net.au. (2007). Australian broadband survey Internet?, The Journal of the American Medical Association 288(22), 2887–2894. 2007. Retrieved from http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2007/ [60] Wright, J. (2016). Regional variation in Chinese internet [54] Scott, J. (2016). Children and the internet: An exploration of filtering. Information, Communication & Society 17(1), Year 5 pupils’ online experiences and perceptions of risk. 121–141. Journal of Huddersfield student research, 2(1). [61] Zittrain, J. L. & Palfrey, J. G. (2007). Access denied: The [55] Shen, F. & Tsui, L. (2016). Public opinion toward internet practice and policy of global internet filtering. Oxford freedom in Asia: A survey of internet users from 11 Internet Institute, Research Report No. 14. Jurisdictions. Berkman Center Research Publication, 2016 (8). [62] Zuchora-Walske, C. (2010). Internet censorship: Protecting citizens or trampling freedom? USA: Lerner Publishing [56] Tkacz, E., & Kapczynski, A. (2009). Internet-Technical Group. development and applications (Vol. 64). Springer Science & Business Media.